Without Registration, Swedish Law Does Not Protect Wikileaks Sources

An anonymous reader writes with word that Wikileaks, which currently stores a lot of their material on servers in Sweden, may not be as safe there as once believed. From the above linked article (from April): "Wikileaks is benefiting form Sweden's basic law 'Grundlag' on the freedom of print information, because it also guarantees the anonymity of sources in digital media, say sources at the European Parliament. In Sweden, if a website registers with the public authorities and can prove it has an editor-in-chief, then it can also be protected under the law, argues the parliamentary source." Says the anonymous submtter, "However, it seems Wikileaks never registered with the public authorities (article in Swedish; here it is auto-translated to English), and thus is not protected by the freedom of print information basic law even if they do have an editor-in-chief."

"Grundlag"

[dsavi]

It literally means Sweden's constitution.

Original source

[akanouras]

Original source [sydsvenskan.se]

Fucking rumour starters at it once more.

Re:Why do they need this?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the source reveals itself, then nothing in the world can restore anonymity for it, no law, no technology, no nothing. The point of the article is that the press can not be compelled to reveal their sources under Swedish law, so if Wikileaks became a registered publication and knew who their sources are, then they would not have to reveal them. That however is a strawman argument. Wikileaks is operated in a way to facilitate anonymous "leaks". The less they know about the sources, the better the source is protected.

I noticed one thing odd on WIkileaks web site

[Anonymous Coward]

www.wikileaks.com has OLDER news than wikileaks.org

Why is that? Why 2 different sites for 2 different domains? I thought they pointed to the same news?

WikiLeaks Denies

[Anonymous Coward]

http://twitter.com/wikileaks/statuses/20558340142

I really know little about the matter, but I thought it was worth pointing out that WikiLeaks is refuting this claim.

CAPTCHA was "spinners".

Link to written english article (no auto-translate

[Cothol]

Another Swedish newspaper (Sydsvenskan) has a well written article in english here [sydsvenskan.se]

FUD

[dcollins]

"An anonymous reader writes with word that Wikileaks..."

Sounds like FUD.

Re:So register

[Zironic]

No, you have to register with the authorities to be considered a Newspaper. Once you're qualified as a newspaper your sources are protected by law making it illegal for the government to investigate them. Obviously the newspaper itself can't be anonymous, but their sources can be.

Re:"Grundlag"

[Anonymous Coward]

wrong it literally translates to "foundation law" not "ground law"

Re:So register

[Anonymous Coward]

Please let me clarify.

If you become a registered publisher in Sweden all your sources anynomity are protected by the law. Your anynomity is however not.
The interesting part about Swedens laws about protecting sources is that it is illegal for the publisher to tell who his sources is so the source will not need to trust the publisher completely. It is also illegal to ask the publisher about his sources so the police, government or anyone who want to track the source cannot do so through the publisher.
The law is made to protect the sources, not to protect the middlemen. (There are other laws for that.)

Re:"Grundlag"

[arth1]

Och hur vet du det?

Your apparent belief that "ground" doesn't mean "foundation" or "base" like "grund" does in Swedish, and that you thus have to use "foundation" is... groundless.

"Foundation law" is stilted. We say "ground rules", and "ground law" follows the same semantics.

That "ground" also shares the same etymology as "grund" makes it an even better literal translation.

Re:"Grundlag"

[Hazelfield]

You have to notice though, that there's a difference between the American constitution and the Swedish Grundlag in that the Swedish one doesn't enjoy the protection of a Supreme Court. In the U.S., proposed legislation can get struck down by the Supreme Court if found unconstitutional. In Sweden there is Lagrådet with a similar function, except it doesn't have the ability to overrule the Riksdag (the parliament that writes the laws). It can only issue recommendations to the Riksdag, who may very well decide to ignore them.

In other words, there's nothing to prevent the parliament from accepting legislature that blatantly conflicts with the constitution.

Re:FUD

[Kidbro]

Perhaps. But the story has been covered by every major Swedish newspaper the last few days.

Svenska Dagbladet [www.svd.se]
Dagens Nyheter [www.dn.se]
Göteborgsposten [www.gp.se]
Sydsvenskan [sydsvenskan.se]

It's the Chancellor of Justice [wikipedia.org] that is being quoted...